What are Clinical Outcome Assessments (COAs) and Can They be Used to Support Approval and/or Labeling Claims?

The patient voice is recognized as one of the most critical sources of data in drug development, and patients play an increasingly important role in these efforts by teaching us about their experience with their condition and its impact. A common way sponsors can leverage the patient experience is by utilizing a clinical outcome assessment (COA). A COA is an assessment that describes or reflects how a patient feels, functions, or survives. Such an assessment can be a patient-reported outcome (PRO) measure, observer-reported outcome (ObsRO) measure, clinician-reported outcome (ClinRO) measure, or a performance outcome (PerfO) measure. Alexander Varond chaired a session on this topic in June 2020 at the Drug Information Association’s Annual Meeting. Slides from his presentation can be found here.
FDA plans to issue a guidance that will provide patient-focused approaches and methods to consider in the selection and/or development of COAs. This future guidance, known as Patient-Focused Drug Development (PFDD) Guidance 3, is one piece of FDA’s plan to develop a series of four PFDD-specific guidances for stakeholders on how to collect and utilize patient experience data in drug development. We initially discussed this plan and background on patient experience data here. In the meantime, FDA has described a “roadmap to COA selection/development for clinical trials” here. This roadmap sets forth how to obtain an understanding of the disease or condition, conceptualize clinical benefit (i.e., how a patient feels, functions and survives), and how to select, develop and modify a COA. In Guidance 4, FDA will discuss how to incorporate COAs into endpoints for regulatory decision-making. FDA issued a discussion document related to the forthcoming Guidance 4 here.
As background, a COA may support approval of a product if it is a “well-defined and reliable” assessment (21 CFR § 314.126). FDA interprets this to mean that the COA must have content validity, construct validity, reliability, and the ability to detect change. But COAs can do much more. For example, COAs can be included in labeling claims, as with CRYSVITA (burosumab-twza) for X-linked hypophosphatemia linked here, which incorporates both PRO and ClinRO measures. COAs can even lead to a regulatory change in thinking about a particular disease or condition. For example, just over two months after hearing directly from patients with epidermolysis bullosa (EB), a rare disorder that results in serious cutaneous manifestations, at an externally-led PFDD meeting, FDA published a draft guidance for sponsors developing therapies for EB that outlined specific examples of efficacy endpoints that would show the drug provides a clinically meaningful improvement. The finalized guidance can be found here.
If you are considering developing or utilizing in your clinical development program a COA, or if have questions about other PFDD initiatives such as PFDD meetings, we encourage you to contact your Goodwin life sciences lawyer for assistance on how to incorporate the patient voice–the real experts on their disease or condition—in drug development.


As part of the U.S. government’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic, on March 10, 2020, the Secretary of Health and Human Services (“Secretary”) issued a Declaration pursuant to the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (“PREP Act”), 42 U.S.C. § 247d-6d. This Declaration activated immunity from personal injury, property damage, and other types of claims for companies and certain professionals who manufacture, distribute, or use “covered countermeasures”— certain drugs and devices, or components thereof, that may be used to treat COVID-19 patients or combat the COVID-19 pandemic.[1] The PREP Act provides broad immunity from liability, but applies only to products and persons that qualify for the immunity under the PREP Act and the limits established in the Secretary’s Declaration.
As discussed in Goodwin’s prior Client Alert, on April 10, 2020, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) began disbursing $30 billion to Medicare providers and suppliers under the Public Health and Social Services Emergency Fund (PHSS Emergency Fund). HHS is requiring providers to agree to certain terms and conditions or return the payments. A number of the terms and conditions created some confusion as to whether providers who have not provided services directly related to COVID-19 may keep the payments. HHS has now clarified that providers may keep payments distributed under the PHSS Emergency Fund regardless of whether they have or will provide services directly related to COVID-19.
On Friday, April 10, 2020, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced it will begin disbursing $30 billion of the $100 billion of the Public Health and Social Services Emergency Fund recently allocated by the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economics Security Act (CARES Act), signed March 27, 2020. Inclusive of the $30 billion, the $100 billion funding will be used to reimburse healthcare providers and facilities.
Subtitle F of the recently enacted U.S. CARES Act substantially reforms the regulatory framework for non-prescription drugs, representing the most significant update of the review process for over-the-counter (OTC) drugs since that process was first established in 1972. The Act draws from recent legislative proposals to reform OTC regulation, incorporating a modified version of the “Over-the-Counter Monograph Safety, Innovation, and Reform Act of 2019” (S. 2740, H.R. 3443) that was passed 91-2 by the U.S. Senate in December 2019. At that time, Senate Health Committee Chairman Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) described the legislation as “the most important new law affecting the safety, innovation, and affordability of over-the-counter drugs since the 1970s.”